Nobel Peace Prize puts Obama's integrity to the test

Published 1:00 am, Sunday, October 25, 2009

Whether or not we think President Barack Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, the more difficult and morally significant question concerns whether he himself feels he merits the award.

Here, of course, we can speculate all we want. But we'll never know. As with any of us, reasons and motives abound. This makes raising the question all the more challenging.

Of 821 Nobel laureates (in peace, literature, economics, etc.), only two have voluntarily refused the award. In 1964, French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre won the Noble Prize in Literature. He declined, believing the prize symbolized capitalist values that contradicted his personal existential, Marxist standpoint. He also felt acceptance would compromise his politically conscientious writing.

"A writer must refuse to allow himself to be transformed into an institution, even if it takes place in the most honorable form," he said, refusing on the grounds of integrity.

In 1973, North Vietnamese diplomat Le Duc Tho refused the Nobel Peace Prize although the other recipient, Henry Kissinger, did not.

Tho believed that since their collaborative efforts toward establishing peace in Vietnam were neither finalized nor guaranteed, the prize was premature. Again, at least on the surface, a matter of integrity.

According to Yale law professor Stephen Carter, integrity involves at least two components: "discerning what is right and what is wrong," and, especially critical, "acting on what you discern, even at personal cost." The test of integrity occurs when there is personal risk. Integrity requires moral backbone.

Or, like Kim Dae-jung, Kofi Annan and Jody Williams, they can accept the award on behalf of those whom they represent (nation, agency). Either way, these unassuming winners embody integrity.

Now what about our President? Thorbjørn Jagland, head of the Noble Prize committee, explained that "we would like to support what he is trying to achieve," underscoring aspiration rather than accomplishment.

Does Barack Obama truly believe he merits the award, that he shares the company of those who dedicated their lives toward peace? Should he believe he does not, what would integrity demand?

Enter moral backbone. Integrity demands that the winner respectfully and humbly waive the prize if he knows he does not deserve it. He should decline precisely on behalf of all those who embody courage in the face of grave risk. These include a long list of distinguished achievers who have never won the Nobel Peace Prize, like the intrepid dissident against Soviet oppression of Czechoslovakia, Vaclav Havel. And the imprisoned university professor and outspoken critic of China's Communist Party, Liu Xiaobo. And the Vietnamese priest, Nguyen Van Ly, repeatedly jailed for advocating democratic reforms. And of course Mohandas Gandhi, whom Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela regarded as their mentor.

In declining the award on behalf of those who have earned it, the winner will face criticism from detractors. Yet, he will earn increased respect. Most importantly, his honor and integrity remain intact. Imagine the consequences of reverently declining the Nobel Prize on behalf of those who have committed their lives and livelihood to alleviating suffering and who have undergone serious personal risks, imprisonment, torture and abuse.

The noble bottom line lies in integrity, the moral core of character and the true measure of one's depth. Without it, any award rings hollow.